Prev: Where is everybody?
Next: Don Catalano dietary products
From: dh on 5 Oct 2008 13:43
On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 06:32:12 -0400, Hoots <ratty_dew(a)yahoo.com> wrote:

>dh@. wrote:
>> On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 07:28:38 -0400, Hoots <ratty_dew(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Goo lied:
>>>
>>>> dh suggested:
>>>>
>>>>> Now that you know who Goo is, I invite you to challenge him to
>>>>> try explaining what he thinks prevents him from benefitting from his
>>>>> own life without referring to "Him" (his pre-existent "self"). It's fun,
>>>>> and the outcome is guaranteed:
>>>>>
>>>>> The challenge will defeat him.
>>>> No one "benefits" from coming into existence, Goo. The explanation has
>>>> been made many times. "Getting to experience life" is not a "benefit"
>>>> compared with never existing, Goo. In fact, the comparison is
>>>> impossible and absurd, as has been shown.

>>> I'm gonna have to trust you guys on this one...
>>
>> Goo just makes the claim, but he can't back it up. Challenge him to
>> explain without referring to "Him" and you'll find out first hand.
>>
>
>Who's "Him"?

Here's the whole thing: A number of years ago I started pointing
out in some of the animal related groups that since animals are not
simply "killed" because humans raise them for food, we should give
their lives as much or more consideration than their deaths. Some
of them have decent lives of positive value and some don't, and
we can't think realistically about whether or not it's cruel *for them*
to be raised for food unless we take it all into consideration. Of
course advocates for the gross misnomer "animal rights"--more
accurately and honestly referred to as "eliminationists" in regards to
domestic animals--are extremely opposed to that idea. They oppose
it because it suggests that some alternative(s) could be ethically
equivalent or superior to their objective to eliminate domestic animals.
In particular it suggests that decent animal welfare could be ethically
superior to the misnomer.

In his maniacal obsession to oppose the suggestion that people
actually consider the animals when considering whether or not it's
cruel to raise them for food, Goob has gone to the extreme of insisting
that no being has ever benefitted from its life. The Goober claims that
he himself doesn't benefit from his own life. Goo can never explain
exactly *how* he thinks we are prevented from benefitting, but he
makes it clear he believes it has something to do with our pre-existent
"selves":

"When the entity moves from "pre-existence" into the
existence we know, we don't know if that move improves
its welfare" - Goo

"EVEN WITH the very best animal welfare conditions one
might provide: they STILL might not be as good as the
"pre-existence" state was" - Goo

"The only way that the concept "benefit from existence"
can begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes
a pre-existent state" - Goo

"Life is not a gain because there *was* no person to
experience the gain" - Goo

"Before being alive, an animal has no well-being to promote.
THEREFORE, Fuckwit, existence is not benefit to farm animals."
- Goo

"Prior to existing, there was no entity, and thus no welfare" - Goo

"Coming into existence is not a benefit to them: it does
not make them better off than before" - Goo

Notice that all of Goo's supposed "arguments" are completely
dependant on assigning some huge significance to the concept
of pre-existence. Out of convenience, and because it's fun, we
can refer to "Him" or "He" when referring to a male's pre-existence,
and "Them" or "They" when referring to a group of individuals'
pre-existences, etc. The Goober makes the claim repeatedly,
and might actually believe it, even though he can never explain
exactly *why* he thinks he doesn't benefit from living because of
some supposed influence by "Him".
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Where is everybody?
Next: Don Catalano dietary products